Another worthwhile small film you may not have heard of that I would like to praise is "Avengers: Endgame" which I re-watched last night with my infant son. (He wakes up and cries every ten minutes, I'm not going to watch "Ikiru.") Spoilers, but c'mon, now.
I generally like the MCU movies -- they're all extremely well made, well acted, and most of all, smart. For the most part, they solve the biggest problem with comic book adaptations, ie: comic books are essentially stupid.
(I love comic books! But people solving problems by dressing up in tights and punching other people is pretty stupid. For evidence: see any comic book movie made before, say, 2000.)
But there are touches in Endgame that make it not just an excellent entertainment but a really fine film. To wit: its emphasis on grief and trauma. Cap's support group, Barton's psychosis, Thor's dissolution, etc.
The way it emphasizes character along with action. The scene between Tony and his dad is as well written and acted as anything in a "serious" movie. Even Tony's farewell letter at the open is strong, adult stuff.
But primarily, it features something that most popular movies don't dare: actual sacrifice. First Natasha, then, quite powerfully, Tony. Think of all the movies you've seen in which the hero/ine gives up everything for someone else... but gets it back. (Eg, Jerry Maguire.)
But neither Tony or Nat come back. As Barton says, "It doesn't work that way." Not in real life, and for once, not in a fantasy. Hell, even Tolkien didn't have that courage and brought back Gandalf. (Although of course, he was a devotee of resurrections.)
The "Avengers... assemble" moment is the one you keep seeing memed On Here and it's great, powerful and satisfying and fun. But "I... am... Iron Man" is actually moving. And I love that those are his final words: no big Death Speech.
If you listened to our final "Nerdette Recaps Game of Thrones" podcast, you know I felt that epic should have ended the same way: with Jon sacrificing himself to save everyone else. "Endgame" provides the punch -- and the satisfaction -- I think they might have conjured.
And then there's a final sacrifice: Cap giving up his life as a superhero to live happily, and we presume quietly, without tights or punching people. In a genre which started and thrived as a fantasy of power for the powerless, giving up power voluntarily is revolutionary.
So bravo to the filmmakers and I hope they get to do something splashy next.
(Ooh, nobody hates this so far. Yay! And if you're a fan of comic books and haven't yet read Michael Chabon's "The Adventures of Kavalier and Klay" re-arrange your life so that is no longer the case, ASAP.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few words on Congressman Riggleman, who's leaving office shortly.
I first became aware of him when he ran for the office in 2018 and we made fun of him for being a fan of "Bigfoot erotica..." which... was sort of true! He's a Bigfoot lore enthusiast, though not a believer.
He won his election and served as a straightforward libertarian Republican. He himself owns and operates a distillery, so has a particular interest in deregulation of business, including the hemp business. congress.gov/bill/116th-con…
But in 2019, true to his principles (ie, Government should leave people alone to do what they want) he officiated a wedding between two of his campaign volunteers, both men. And the local GOP in his district Did Not Like That.
Ever since hosting "Constitution USA" on PBS 7 years ago I've given talks on the Constitution. The principle question I ask and then try to answer is: Why has our Con succeeded (+ or -) when so many others have failed or were instantly ignored?
Here's the Soviet Constitution of 1936, for example. Note: guaranteed universal suffrage, rights to work, health care, leisure time, etc. A liberal's dream. And of course, it was instantly and immediately ignored. Why wasn't ours?
After a long chat, with care to mark the places/times it WAS ignored (see: Jim Crow), I arrive at this answer: because what binds us together in America is not culture or national origin but a kind of civic religion of democracy.
But it's also useful in thinking about the Civil War, and its causes. Usually we talk about the South's motivation for seceding, because it's been so intentionally obscured and lied about. They did it to preserve chattel slavery, period.
But why did Lincoln fight them?
He himself said, famously, that it was to "save the Union." "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
Sen. Tillis made a point I often do: that every dictator in the modern world ran a country with a Bill of a Rights.
It’s true! Among those countries: the Soviet Union, Communist China.
Then he said the difference between them and the US was “we have a Constitution.”
Um, no.
1st of all the Bill of Rights IS the Constitution. First ten amendments thereto, in fact.
2nd, those countries also had Constitutions, which their leaders also ignored. It’s all just paper.
So what’s the real difference between them and us? I could go on about this — and do!— but it boils down to: in this country we’ve always* had the willing consent of the losers.